Someone with a taxable income of $1,000,000 a year is still taking home 29 times as much money as someone with a taxable income
of $25,000.

A $1,000,000 earner who gets a raise of $100,000 still takes $55,000 of that money home. This “net raise” is
still more money than many people earn in one year.

If paying a 45% tax rate is too much from a moral perspective, a high-income earner has the freedom to reduce his or her
workload. Other aspiring citizens will be happy to pick up this slack.

Earning a high income is not within everyone's pool of talent. Many higher income earners have a great combination of genetics
and good formative environment to give them the attributes to earn a higher income.

A higher income is very dependent on roads, water & sewage, electricity, police & courts & prisons, education, and well
educated employees. If all citizens are to pay exactly the same tax, these services would not be there for more talented people to earn
their higher income.

To enjoy wealth, high income earners depend on a lot of people earning $25,000 a year to provide goods and services at a low
cost.

There is an unofficial contract between the high-income earner and the nation. In exchange for the opportunity to build and
enjoy wealth, the government provides services in exchange for taxes. This contract is well known before the high income is attained.
If the terms are unacceptable, then the future high-income earner should move elsewhere—before the high income is realized.
By staying to get rich and then finding ways not to pay taxes, the high-income earner is violating the terms of this social
contract.

The entrepreneur of the news article made his fortune in Canada, then moved to Britain. The article suggests he can bring in all his
wealth, not pay taxes, yet use various services paid for by British taxpayers. Would this not make him a bit of a freeloader?

And there are other countries where high-income earners pay very low tax rates. Somalia has total business freedom, but
virtually no business laws by western standards. And Haiti ensures the lower classes remain as the lower classes. Are these the model
societies where entrepreneurs can thrive and flourish?

If the talents and hard work of high-income earners are so vital to society, then logic suggests high-income earners should
be rewarded with a lower tax rate than an average worker.

Thirty-five years ago, reaganomics predicted lowering tax rates would increase consumer and corporate spending to the point
where more tax revenues would be generated by the stimulated economy. There is little evidence this trickle-down economics has
worked out. It seems reducing tax revenue has mostly resulted in ballooning government debts and an increasingly disenfranchised lower
and middle class, tilling the soil for nefarious political movements. Is the individual's right to acquire vast wealth more
important than the nation's financial and psychological health?

This article shall close pointing out that many high-income earners understand the connection between a strong civil society and
opportunity to build and enjoy wealth. These people willingly pay their taxes. They do not change their residence to get a tax break.
They do not set up shell companies and offshore accounts. They still live a very comfortable life. They are thankful for their
geography and time in history to provide the creative opportunities they so enjoy. The entrepreneur who inspired this article does not
seem be thankful.